Every time I've received overly detailed JIRA tickets like this it's always been significantly more of a headache than the vague ones from product people. You end up with someone with enough tech knowledge to have an opinion, but separated enough from the work that their opinions don't quite work.

Maybe you'll appreciate having it pointed out to you: you should work on your usage of "where" vs "were".

> how is a chatbot to know that the author of the task is a moron?

Does it matter?

The chatbot could deliver exactly what was asked for (even if it wasn't what was needed) without any angst or interpersonal issues.

Don't get me wrong. I feel you. I've been there, done that.

OTOH, maybe we should leave the morons to their shiny new toys and let them get on with specifying enough rope to hang themselves from the tallest available structure.

Are you working at OpenAI?

"The guy is also a complete tool." - Who says Hackers news is not filled with humor?

I like this use of LLM because I assume both the developer and ticket owner will review the text and agree to its contents. The LLM could help ensure the ticket is thorough and its meaning is understood by all parties. One downside is verbosity, but the humans in the loop can edit mercilessly. Without human review, these tickets would have all the downsides of vibe coding.

Thank you for sharing this workflow. I have low tolerance for LLM written text, but this seems like a really good use case.

Wait until you learn that the people on the other side of your ticket updates are also using LLMs to respond. It's LLMs talking to LLMs now.

A significant part of my workflow is getting a ticket that is ill-defined or confused and rewriting it so that it is something I can do or not do.

From time to time I have talked over a ticket with an LLM and gotten back what I think is a useful analysis of the problem and put it into the text or comments and I find my peeps tend to think these are TLDR.

You think the business line stakeholder is going to patiently hang out in JIRA, engaging with an overly cheerful robot that keeps "missing the point" and being "intentionally obtuse" with its "irrelevant questions"?

This is how most non-technical stakeholders feel when you probe for consistent, thorough requirements and a key professional skill for many more senior developers and consultants is in mastering the soft skills that keep them attentive and sufficiently helpful. Those skills are not generic sycophancy, but involve personal attunement to the stakeholder, patience (exercising and engendering), and cycling the right balance between persistence and de-escalation.

Or do you just mean there will be some PM who acts as proxy between for the stakeholder on the ticket, but still needs to get them onto the phone and into meetings so the answers can be secured?

Because in the real world, the prior is outlandish and the latter doesn't gain much.

What do you mean by eventually?

this already exists.